aiworkhub_task_archive

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the atomic side effects, the per-item coordinator-capability write gate, refusal of processing cards, the <=200 batch cap, and per-id receipts where 'one refusal never hides the rest'. Gaps: no statement of reversibility/restore path or permission prerequisites beyond the vague 'coordinator-capability write gate'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the operation and the alternative, then labeled Target / dry_run / Replies blocks — every sentence carries information. The prose is dense and slightly packed; a short bulleted selector list would read faster, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-param, unannotated mutation tool this covers what an agent needs: side effects, capability gating, dry-run preview, batch limits, selector conjunction, and reply shape. The output schema is present, so return-value enumeration is not required, and it is nevertheless summarized.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate and largely does: it explains the one-of targeting modes (task_id, task_ids, selector), the batch cap of 200, the conjunctive (AND) semantics of status/topic/older_than_hours/task_id_prefix, and dry_run's preview behavior. The 'reason' parameter is never explained, and priority/precedence when multiple target modes are supplied is unstated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'COORDINATOR WRITE: archive stale non-processing tasks atomically', then enumerates exactly what is written (archived_at, card_json, task_events row). It also names the sibling it is not ('For an active/orphaned card use supersede'), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use this vs supersede and 'use this instead of patching SQLite', plus a dry_run preview path. It does not mention the near-identically named siblings (aiworkhub_dashboard_task_archive / aiworkhub_manager_task_archive) or when-not-to-archive (e.g., terminal vs processing states beyond 'non-processing').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.